Talk:Spanish language in the Philippines/Archive 3

Late 19th century and the American period
I've just finished some edits relating to these periods. I tried to stick to cite-supprted points (and I tagged a few unsupported assertions). Though I'm no expert in this subject and I didn't refer to sources other than some which were already cited in the article, I think that my edits improved the article.

I do have a bit of a problem with one point, however. Speaking of the early 20th century timeframe, the article says, "Spanish had become the most important language in the country despite roughly half of the population not speaking the language." I'm wondering what other language might have been spoken in this timeframe by a larger percentage of the population than Spanish. I'm guessing that none of the indigenous languages were then spoken by more than half of the population. If that was the case at that time, the "... despite roughly half of the population not speaking the language" comment seems out of place. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 07:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Spanish as "the original national language"
The lead sentence of this article says, "Spanish was the first official language of the Philippines and the country's original national language." I am unable to verify that Spanish was the country's original national language. Indeed, the Malolos constitution which is used to support the assertion that Spanish was the first official language says, "ART. 93. The use of languages spoken in the Philippines is optional. It can only be regulated by law, and solely as to the acts of public authority and judicial affairs." Barring the appearance of cite-supported information to the contrary, I propose to remove the assertion that Spanish was the original national language of the Philippines. I'm traveling at the moment but I'll look for some relevant citeable material myself when able -- probably next week. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 23:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Checked both the Biac-na-Bato and Malolos Constitutions. Neither proclaimed Spanish as the national language. --Pare Mo (talk) 16:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Please do not change or twist the facts around to suit your own interpretation. First, Spanish was the sole official lanaguage of the first Philippine Republic, meaning the Philippine's first official language as an independent state. It was also the lingua franca or common platform of communication for Filipinos of different linguistic backgrounds during the colonial period. It was therefore he first "national language" whether you consider the existence of a Philippine nation before or after the proclamation of the First Philippine Republic.


 * In your quote of Art. 93 of the Malolos Constitution, you also fail to include the last sentence which reads "... For these [official] acts the Spanish language will be used in the meantime". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.221.52.70 (talk) 15:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Please do not revert the above sentence unless you have reliable references about the contrary. Spanish was the original language of the Philippines because before Spanish colonization there was no Philippine Nation. It was also the language used by Filipinos who spoke different dialects, to be able to communicate with each other. Finally, it was the National Language of the First Philippine Republic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.221.52.70 (talk) 12:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "National language" ≠ "official language". See Languages of the Philippines. Official and national languages are distinct from one another. – Howard  the   Duck  11:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Someone anonymously pointed out above that my quote from the Malolos Constitution was incomplete. OK, quoted completely, and in the original Spanish, Article 93 says

The approved English translation of that is

As I read that, the initial two sentences (which I originally requoted) say that use of language is optional, but that official use can be regulated by law. The third sentence (which I previously omitted, and which should be read in the context established by the first two sentences) says that in the interim period until laws regulating language use for acts of public authority and in the courts are promulgated, the Spanish language is permitted to be used for these official purposes. As I read that, the third sentence has no value in support of assertions outside of the context established by the first two sentences.

Looking at this article again, I see that it cites this paper in a couple of places. Let me quote a bit from pages 26 and 27 of that paper:

That seems to say that Spanish wasn't widely spoken in the Philippines until sometime after 1863. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 02:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Please note that your English transalation of Article 93 is incorrect. The Article does not say "Spanish may be used", or "is permitted to be used", but Spanish "will be used" for these public acts.


 * Apart from this being completely factual (go to any language translation site) it is also common sense. Spanish was the lingua franca of the Philippines and spoken by the majority of the middle classes (professionals, doctors, journalists, teachers, lawyers, merchants etc). What other language could have been used for public acts except Spanish? Why on earth would Spanish be simply "permitted"? It had to be used, it was the only choice.


 * The translation is not only flawed, but intentionally flawed. It attempts to lessen the importance of Spanish as the only official language of the Philippines, in the same way that many Philippine history books in English criticize anything Spanish in Philippine history, culture or identity. Enough of this Philippine version of the Black Legend propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.221.52.69 (talk) 19:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Regarding the translation I provided above, it is not "my" translation. I don't speak Spanish. Even if I did speak Spanish, providing my own translation version would probably be improper original research. The translation came from
 * (an online provider of online legal research materials and tools), which says of it: "This page contains the approved translation of the Malolos Constitution." (no, I don't know who the purported approving authority might be). The same translation can be found at
 * , ISBN 1402045107, ISBN 9781402045103.
 * and at
 * , ISBN 1851096752, ISBN 9781851096756.
 * and at
 * and in many other sources. If this version of the translation is flawed (intentionally or not), that flaw was not contrived by me.
 * I do see that another source
 * (Note: 1. The book cover incorrectly lists author as "Maximo M Lalaw", 2. Originally published in 1921 by The McCullough Printing Co., Manila
 * gives this translation
 * (Note: 1. The book cover incorrectly lists author as "Maximo M Lalaw", 2. Originally published in 1921 by The McCullough Printing Co., Manila
 * gives this translation


 * I haven't found another source giving that version of the translation.
 * I also see this. The source does not qualify under Reliable sources guidelines, but the content is interesting. A citeable reliable source for the same material probably does exist. It contains a purported requote of the closing address to the Philippine Assembly, an address titled titled "The unity of the Filipino people", given on the night of February 11, 1913 by Honorable Sergio Osmeña. It is in Spanish, a language which I do not understand. Using Google language tools to get a rough translation, I see that it appears to argue for the use of English as an official language. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 23:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * (additional info) The Malolos Constitution article mentions another source -- one which looks significant. It appears that I was the editor who introduced that source to the article back in May of 2008. This appears to be the translator who is the creator of the "may be used in the meantime" translation:
 * . (English translation by Sulpicio Guevara. Originally published by the National Historical Commission, Manila, 1972.).
 * From that source, "Translation by the author from original Spanish text." The title page identifies the compiler and editor as Sulpico Guevara A.B., LL.B., LL.M.; Division of Research and Law Reform, University of the Philippines Law Center. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 00:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) All through this, I've had a feeling of Déjà vu. Well, it seems it was more than a feeling, it was a fuzzy recollection of having been down this road previously (about a year ago, actually, the section above.

I've locate3d a couple of new sources: Publishing the "may be used in the meantime" translation
 * (Author is described as of the publication date as Dean of the College of Law, University of the East. With a forward by Hilario G. Davide Jr. Chief Justice of the Supreme Court).

I've now come across a third translation, in
 * , ISBN 9712321932, ISBN 9789712321931.

This translation is similar to the translation quoted above from, but it is not identical. So, at this point, we have three different English translations. At this point I am at a loss about where to go from here. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 04:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Boracay Bill, it seems you did a lot of research on Article 93 of the Malolos Constitution. The fact is that "Para estos actos se usará por ahora la lengua castellana" translates as "For these acts the Spanish (Castilian) language will be used" or "shall be used". I don't know if some of the translations are intentionally wrong, but the sentence definitely does not say "may be used". However, I could see why in the early years of American administration of the Philippines, the authorities would prefer to translate it as "may". JCRB (talk) 20:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * As I said above, it appears to me that the "may be used in the meantime" translation given in originated in  when it was originally published in 1972 by the National Historical Institute (Philippines) (70+ years after the early years of the American administration, that is). AFAICT, that translation published in 1972 by the National historical Institute is the generally accepted translation, though some other translations do exist (I found and cited above isolated published sources for two others).


 * Also, please read Wikipedia's three core content policies:
 * Verification ("The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth&mdash;that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.")
 * Original research ("Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, or arguments. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented.")
 * Neutral point of view ("Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors. For guidance on how to make an article conform to the neutral point of view, see the NPOV tutorial; for examples and explanations that illustrate key aspects of this policy, see Neutral point of view/FAQ.:


 * -- Boracay Bill (talk) 07:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Verifiable, neutral and no original research
Boracay, I am not sure when the mistaken translation originated. I am just pointing out it is incorrect. Also, I am familiar with Wikipedia policies. Please see below:
 * Verifiable: Here www.wordreference.com you can find the meaning of "se usará" (will be used), "por ahora" (for now) and "la lengua castellana" (the Castilian or Spanish language).
 * Neutral: Providing information on Article 93 of Malolos is completely neutral. So is revealing that the translation "may be used" is flawed.
 * No original research. I have provided a website that offers good translations (Spanish to English). That should be enough. JCRB (talk) 19:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * FWICS, the "may be" translation is the generally accepted one, the translation most often seen in published sources, dubbed the "official" translation by some sources. As I've said, I don't speak Spanish. I am not qualified to provide any sort of expert opinion on this. However two alternative translations which I have found in published sources, though they differ from one another, both do use the word "shall" instead of the word "may". You say that you have found reliable sources saying that the correct translation would be "shall". Considering WP:V ("... whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.") and WP:NPOV ("... representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources"), I think that it would be improper to eliminate the "may" translation from the article, replacing it with the "shall" translation. Considering the apparent predominence of the "may" translation in the sources I've looked at, it seems to me that this should remain the translation used by the article. Considering that some few sources do exist which use the "shall" translation, and considering that some langage-translation sources do exist which support the assertion that "shall" would be a more correct translation than "may", it would be appropriate for the article to provide cite-supported information that some alternative translations use "shall" rather than "may", and to provide explanatory information&mdash;perhaps in a footnote containing something like the following:


 * Spanish : "Para estos actos se usara por ahora la lengua Castellano."
 * Generally accepted translation ( and many others, possibly with several cited individually): "For these acts the Spanish language may be used in the meantime."
 * : "For the purpose of these acts shall be used at present the Castillian language."
 * : "for these acts, the Spanish language shall be used for the present."
 * Automated |en|Para%20estos%20actos%20se%20usara%20por%20ahora%20la%20lengua%20Castellano.%0A%0A translation by Google language tools: "For these events is now used by the Castilian tongue."
 * IMO, it would not be proper to eliminate mention of the "may" translation in favor of a "shall" translation just because some individual wikipedia editors hold the opinion that some particular "shall" translation is more correct than the apparently generally-accepted "may" translation. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 00:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks Boracay. I appreciate your statement that you are not an expert in the Spanish language. I also appreciate your references about the correct translation. I do speak Spanish fluently and can modestly consider myself an expert in this language. This is really not an ideological, political or historical opinion. It is a clear simple fact that "se usará" transaltes as "will" or "shall be used", not "may be used". The latter indicates a possibility or permission, whereas the former makes an unconditional statement. Thus, regardless that some sources carry the "may" phrase, if all translation sites and dictionaries point to "shall" as the right translation, then we should be constructive and eliminate the "may" translation. However, I would be happy to add a note that says:


 * For some undetermined reason, some sources translate this sentence as "may be used", instead of "shall be used" which is the correct translation according to all dictionaries consulted. JCRB (talk) 15:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The lead sentence of Neutral point of view says, "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." As far as I can tell, the "may be used" translation has much more prominence in published sources than do the several different "shall be used" translations. That translation is published by the National Historical Commission of the Philippines seems to have been produced by that organization.


 * The lead paragraph of Verifiability says, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed." (I added the emphasis here)


 * Considering these pronouncements in two of the three Wikipedia core policies, it seems to me that the "may be used" translation should be given prominence in the article, and the article should also note that some sources provide translations saying "shall be used". -- Boracay Bill (talk) 07:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * As with any legal document, it seems that, ultimately, only an officially mandated retranslation will do, since the original does not accurately reflect the fact that se usar&#225;, as both our anonymous colleague and JCRB have diligently noted, correctly translates as shall be used or will be used. Unfortunately, a new translation is not forthcoming so I will have to agree with Bill that, for now, we should use the only existing official, albeit incorrect, translation. We can then simply point out its errors; in fact, I believe it our duty to do so. I myself speak Spanish, though not as fluently as JCRB and most likely our anonymous colleague.


 * However, a correct translation still does not prove that Spanish was the national as well as the official language, as our anonymous colleague claims. The only thing it does is state that it will be used officially. Official and national status are not legally identical. An institution may proclaim a language official but not national (as in the case of English in the Philippines, where it is an official but not national language). Conversely, it may proclaim a language national but not official (as in the case of Spanish in Mexico, where it is a national but not official language). --Pare Mo (talk) 04:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Look, let us be a little constructive here. We know for a fact that the "may be used" translation is flawed. We also know according to some historians, that certain documents relating to the First Philippine Republic were intentionally mis-translated, including parts of the Malolos Constitution, to lessen the importance of Spanish (and Hispanic culture) in the eyes of the new generations of Filipinos. This is understandable given the effort by the US authorities to introduce English and pave the way for American colonization. Therefore, let us look beyond the small print of the Wikipedia policies, and try to be honest and constructive. Article 93 says "Spanish will be used", period. We can add a note about the different translations afterwards (as I suggested above). JCRB (talk) 09:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * What I wrote was a late reply to the earlier debate on whether Spanish was the first national language. I believe we have moved on, then.


 * As for Article 93, you do have a point. That se usar&#225; is in the future tense is plain fact, and not an issue concerning WP:NPOV, I later realized. (The Spanish original would be used anyway in the Spanish Wikipedia.)


 * So given that NPOV is no longer an issue, I believe we should push through with your plan. --Pare Mo (talk) 11:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Offhand, I don't have an issue with that so long as any assertion in the article that the "may be used" translation is flawed is supported by a cited reliable source (vs. an unsupported assertion on the basis that "we know for a fact" ). I have mentioned sources above which support assertions that alternative translations using "shall" do exist, but none which assert that "may" is flawed. My own speculation is that early translations (e.g., the  translation I cited above) probably used "shall", that the translation which I cited above as, using "may" appeared in 1972 under the auspices of the National Historical Commission (NHC) (see here), and that this 1972 NHC translation appears now to be regarded as the "official" translation (some of the other sources I cited above which use this translation describe it as such). -- Boracay Bill (talk) 01:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * JCRB, you say above, "We also know according to some historians that certain documents relating to the First Philippine Republic were intentionally mis-translated, including parts of the Malolos Constitution, to lessen the importance of Spanish (and Hispanic culture) in the eyes of the new generations of Filipinos. This is understandable given the effort by the US authorities to introduce English and pave the way for American colonization." Can you please cite sources for the assertions that
 * certain documents relating to the First Philippine Republic were intentionally mis-translated, including parts of the Malolos Constitution
 * this was done in order to lessen the importance of Spanish (and Hispanic culture) in the eyes of the new generations of Filipinos
 * there was an effort by the US authorities to introduce English and pave the way for American colonization
 * I have a few Philippine history books at home which I've only used as references. I haven't read any of them cover to cover, but I don't recall reading those points in any of them. I am away from home at present, in Manila for a few days.I may be able to find copies of specific books here if you'll cite the ones I should look for. Regarding point 3, I'm sure that providing the Thomasite teachers to jump-start the Philippine education system had that effect somewhat, but I read the primary intention there as the jump-starting of the Philippine education system rather than the suppression of the Spanish language. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 06:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * (continuing, with widened scope) Hmmm.... Looking at this article again, I see that it has wider problems than just the need to clarify the status of the Spanish language during the period of the revolutionary Malolos government (citing appropriate supporting sources, of course). The article implies that the 1897 Tagalog Republic and the 1898-1902 Malolos Republic functioned as national governments. Neither did, of course. The country was governed under Spanish and US sovereignty during the time periods when those nascent revolutionary "governments" existed. It doesn't make sense to explore that in depth in this article&mdash;which is, of course, on a more limited topic. The article should not give this false impression, however.  I'll defer addressing this until I can edit the article with a stack of history books handy -- probably next week sometime. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 01:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect interpretations (not just translations)
I don't think there is a need for the article to state that "certain documents relating to the First Philippine Republic were intentionally mis-translated". However, if you want to include this, I will look for the references. Meanwhile, I'd like to ask if your history books really say that the Thomasites "jump-started the Philippine education system". Let me point out that they did not. There was already a public education system in the Philippines since 1863 (for example the schools of San Juan de Letrán, of San Beda, Santa Isabel, Santa Catalina, Santa Rosa, La Concordia, La Consolación and Santa Rita). I would like to see those books and to what extent their interpretation of events (not just translations) are flawed. JCRB (talk) 16:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I am responding from an internet cafe in manila. I will be back in Boracay in a day or two, and will look in my reference books there. I haven't previously looked closely at the Thomasites, etc., buit I recall that some of the books do have some material on that topic. I'll also look for any further info on translations and/or mistranslations of the Malolos constitution.
 * More generally on this article, it seems to me that in order to treat this topic properly, the article should open with some info on the introduction of the Spanish language into the Philippines, or at least on its becoming a language of significance followed by some info on its increasing importance during the 300ish year Spanish period, followed by some material on Spanish during the American period, followed by some material on the Spanish language subsequent to the American period. I think that I probably have info on all of this, and will try to edit that into the article once I'm settled in back in Boracay, probably in the next week or two. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 02:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Spanish being taught in the Filipino schools as a compulsory subject
I have heard that Spanish being taught in the Filipino schools as a compulsory subject. LeUrsidae96 (talk) 03:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Vocabulary
Baho/Bajo meaning "strong smelling, nasty smelling" is a common Spanish word especially used in the Caribbean/Andalusian dialects. There should be no confusion over this word if you truly know the Spanish language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.193.91 (talk) 12:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Spelling in List of Spanish words of Philippine origin section
I noticed that some of the words identified as "old Tagalog" contain the letter "c", and that Tagalog language doesn't show a "c" for Tagalog. More info here, which is cited there. This looks like a conflict between the two articles. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Mr. Wtmitchell, the Old Tagalog language used to be written using the Abecedario alphabet and using Spanish orthography during the Spanish Colonial Period up to 1940 when the Tagalog-Based National Language was taught nationwide replacing the Abecedario alphabet with the Abakada alphabet and changing the letter C with a K. Please check on the Wikipedia article Filipino orthography. Here are some external links for further information --> (The evolution of the native Tagalog alphabet), (The evolution of the native Tagalog alphabet: Genocide), and (The importance of the Tagalog 32-letter alphabet to the modern education of the youth). I hope that these will give light to your concern. Please read the 3 articles if you have time. Bacoleño (talk) 02:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Aha! Thanks for that. I hadn't realized that the alphabet had a 'c' in Spanish colonial times, and that indigenization in 1936 dropped the 'c'. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. :) By the way, here's a link of Project Gutenberg EBook of Doctrina Christiana. Doctrina Christiana (Christian Doctrine) is the very first book printed in the Philippines (published in Manila, 1593). It is written in both Old Spanish language (ergo, old Spanish orthographic style) and Old Tagalog language [written in both Latin alphabet (old Spanish orthographic style) and Baybayin script)] to teach the native Tagalogs on the basic doctrine of the Catholic Church (Lord's Prayer, Hail Mary, etc.). The book is also meant to teach the Spanish-modified Latin alphabet and to introduce the Old Spanish language to the native Tagalogs. Bacoleño (talk) 14:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect and misleading translation on a reference
In the header someone referenced Professor Guillermo Gómez Rivera, member of the Real Academia Filipina de la Lengua as saying that: "It's true that Spanish was never the maternal language of the majority of Filipinos." That's very misleading. What Gomez-Rivera wrote is that: "Es verdad que nunca fueron todos los habitantes de las Islas Filipinas los que tuvieron el idioma español como su lengua materna." "Estadísticas del Idioma Español en Filipinas" which means: "It's true that Spanish was never the maternal language of ALL Filipinos." Huge difference, specially if we take into account the sentence that follows that one in the same article: "pero tampoco es justo decir que este idioma nunca se habló en Filipinas en escala nacional." which means: "But it wouldn't be fair neither to say that this language was never spoken in the Philippines on a national scale." —Preceding unsigned comment added by RafaelMinuesa (talk • contribs) 02:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Need to Specify
it need to exact wether it is a Zamboangueno (chavacano) or of caviteno/Ternatero(chabacano). although intelligible with each other but there are orthographies and the lexicon that are not same. like for example: tarda(zamboangueno) whil talda for caviteno/ternateno, which mean "tagal". thanks!;-)--Acer Cyle (talk) 07:37, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Characteristics
The section on the characteristics of Philippine Spanish has no citations, has original research that seems to be based on anecdotal observations, and some inaccuracies. For example, it says it usually follows Peninsular (I hate the term Castilian Spanish but that may be a pet peeve of mine) norms of differentiating between palatal liquids [ʎ] spelled  and palatal glides spelled  or  IPA: [j]. However, that distinction has largely vanished in Spain. mnewmanqc (talk) 08:58, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Re(?)imposition of English after WW-II.
I've reverted this good-faith edit. My reasoning is as follows:
 * 1. The assertion relies on a supporting cite. The relevant paragraph of cited item says (translated by google):

"After the war, English was imposed as the language of power winning, because the U.S. had already won three wars (in 1898 against Spain in 1902 against Filipino independence and in 1945 - And Spain was associated politically with the countries-losers. The political setback, social and demographic of Spanish was clear. There was, indeed, a widespread shift in language attitudes."
 * As I read this, it makes the point that the combined effect of the three wars and half a century of U.S. rule was responsible for a widespread shift in language attitudes. It also asserts (incorrectly) that English was imposed as the official language after WW-II.
 * 2. The 1943 Philippine constitution, under which the country was governed while occupied by Japan, did not designate an official language (it did mandate that the government take steps toward the development and propagation of Tagalog as the national language.) The 1935 constitution, which was reinstated by the repudiation of the 1943 constitution, designated English and Spanish as official languages. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Spanish has always been considered by the Filipinos as the language of the elite. It is so cool to be Spanish that it is not uncommon to claim Spanish ancestry to give the appearance of a high class origin. I am still wondering how did it lose its usage if it is one's link to a status in society? It has never been against the law to speak Spanish. So how is it that a language that sets one group apart from the ordinary was rejected. Why would you drop it, if it can get you connectedPangkaraniwanLang (talk) 07:24, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * This is not the place for blogish discussions -- see WP:TPG. Do you have some suggestions re the Decline of the Spanish language section of the article? I did do some googling, and turned up and . Those might be of interest. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:42, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

A 1916 report by Henry Ford to President Woodrow Wilson - The opposite of the copy I have
Here's an excerpt from the book itself as written by Henry Jones Ford - Woodrow Wilson: The Man and His Work By Henry Jones Ford - Princeton March 1916

Page 213 - The Filipino gentry speak Spanish and the masses speak native dialects which are not low languages but are refined and capable instruments of thought producing poetry drama and romantic literature although deficient in science

Page 215 - As an incident of the educational scheme literacy qualifications for the suffrage were confined to those who could read and write either Spanish or English. This provision while designed to stimulate acquisition of English speech had incidentally the effect of propagating grave misrepresentations of the situation. Attention has often been called to the fact that the qualified electorate is an extraordinarily small percentage of the adult male population thus indicating that illiteracy generally prevails. But this is not really the case and it appears to be so merely because natives who cannot read and write a foreign language are officially classed as illiterate. Probably it is the only instance in history in which people who can read and write their own language are classed as illiterate.IsaLang (talk) 19:50, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Is this article a deliberate misinformation, or the writer did not do a thorough research?
Since Rizal and his El Filibusterismo was mentioned in this article. I have to ask. Did the writer of this article read El Filibusterismo? If so, he/she would have found out how scarce the Spanish speakers were in the Philippines. Here's how Rizal described the scarcity of Spanish during his time through El Filibusterismo

"But fortunately, you have an imbecile government! While Russia enslaves Poland by forcing the Russian language upon it, while Germany prohibits French in the conquered provinces, your government strives to preserve yours, and you in return, a remarkable people under an incredible government, you are trying to despoil yourselves of your own nationality! Spanish will never be the general language of the country, the people will never talk it, because the conceptions of their brains and the feelings of their hearts cannot be expressed in that language — each people has its own tongue, as it has its own way of thinking! WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO WITH CASTILIAN, THE FEW OF YOU WHO WILL SPEAK IT? Kill off your own originality, subordinate your thoughts to other brains, and instead of freeing yourselves, make yourselves slaves indeed!"

Also the your source, Henry Ford, wrote about the scarcity of Spanish. Whoever wrote this article is misinforming everyone by saying that Henry Ford wrote that Spanish was spoken by everyone.

Here's how Henry Ford wrote it, go to Hathi Trust, a website where anyone can read for free and without creating an account. When you get to Hathi Trust, type this title Woodrow Wilson, The Man and His Work by Henry Jones Ford, the one that Pres. Wilson sent to the Philippines (Henry Ford, the automobile tycoon was never in the Philippines).

On page 215, 2nd paragraph, he wrote this: "As an incident of the educational scheme literacy qualifications for the suffrage were confined to those who could read and write either Spanish or English. This provision while designed to stimulate acquisition of English speech had incidentally the effect of propagating grave misrepresentations of the situation.  Attention has often been called to the fact that the qualified electorate is an extraordinarily small percentage of the adult male population thus indicating that illiteracy generally prevails. But this is not really the case and it appears to be so merely because natives who cannot read and write a foreign language are officially classed as illiterate. Probably it is the only instance in history in which people who can read and write their own language are classed as illiterate."

Another proof of few Filipinos speaking Spanish can be found on this book: THE FILIPINO PEOPLE ASK JUSTICE SPEECH OF HON. MANUEL L. QUEZON OF THE PHILIPPINES IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON FEB 1913 Hathi Trust Digital Library has a copy, free for anyone to read online, no need to create an account.

Page 21 — Manuel Quezon was complaining about the current (1913) electoral laws because only 15% of the Filipinos were qualified to vote. Part of this 15% were those who could speak or write English or Spanish.-— "I have asked the gentleman from Pennsylvania how many voters there would be in this country if the people of the United States were required to read and write German or any other foreign language. And I ask the same question again. Neither Spanish nor English are native languages in the Philippines" LaLeyDeHerodes, Te Odjse (talk) 04:46, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Visayan languages which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 03:44, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 30 June 2015

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. Seems like article will be split. If you do so please make sure there are clear hatnotes to help readers out who could get confused between the two topics. Jenks24 (talk) 07:56, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Spanish language in the Philippines → Philippine Spanish – WP:CONCISE, to be consistent with Philippine languages, Philippine English, Philippine Hokkien, Philippine Mandarin, Philippine Malay, & Philippine Sign Language. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 15:17, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:CONCISE and WP:CONSISTENCY. Khestwol (talk) 16:47, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose; article is not about Philippine Spanish, but rather the evolution and use of Spanish in the Philippines. There's a difference. For instance, see this sentence in the 6th paragraph of the lede: "In addition, an estimated 1,200,000 people speak Chavacano, a Spanish-based creole." I don't see anyone proposing to rename Chavacano as Philippine Chavacano. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 20:53, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. Dubious argument. Both California English and Multicultural London English are about the evolution of English in California and London respectively yet they remain as distinct varieties and their titles reflect this situation. This article can be both an article about a distinct variety as well as the evolution of a particular language within a particular territory. A better article about the evolution of the Spanish language in the Philippines would be "History of the Spanish language in the Philippines". Note that the infobox have had the title "Philippine Spanish" for a long time and it has remained unchallenged. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 00:04, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support move to Philippine Spanish. There is no ambiguity here as "Philippine" is an adjective that refers to an object or thing from the Philippines, so there is no confusion with Filipino Spanish, the people of Spanish ancestry from the Philippines or those with Filipino ancestry from Spain. --RioHondo (talk) 00:37, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Seems logical, and conciseness rules. Red Slash 03:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support This is a much better title and more accurate KiwikiKiWi (talk) 00:05, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the reasons the article was moved here in the first place: The topic is not a distinctive variety of Spanish spoken in the Philippines, which is just a subsection, but more generally about Spanish in the Philippines. If we move the article, then we should change the topic to match, by deleting half the article. — kwami (talk) 05:46, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment The phrasing may be at fault, a simple copy-edit can fix that. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 08:08, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * What does that mean? The only way to "copy edit" the title would be to move it back. — kwami (talk) 06:18, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't know.Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 19:38, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Kwamilagamilkwami is right. The main topic of the article is the history of Spanish language in the Philippines. I would recommend moving the sections pertaining to the Spanish language as used in the Philippines to its own article instead at Philippine Spanish so we can separate the two entirely different topics.--RioHondo (talk) 02:23, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Then WP:FORK it into a "History of Spanish..." article. The current article is an amalgation of two separate topics. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 03:08, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Speedy close Nevermind. I'll just WP:SPLIT the article and create a Philippine Spanish article. This one is too long anyway. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 03:16, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

A badly duplicated Ref
Looking at this article after a recent edit popped it up on my watchlist, I saw a couple of problems.

First, I noticed that the Ref named andrewgonzalez (footnote number 37 in the current version of the article) has problems. It is declared at one point as

and at another point as

That problem seems to have appeared in this January 2009 edit of the article

The first of those two Ref declarations looks like the one intended, but the citation there does not give enough information to identify what particular Andrew Gonzalez article is being cited and the page targeted by the URL in the cite no longer contains a copy of the article. Some archived copies of that page do contain copies of the article, however, and I've redone both of those Ref declarations. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:23, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 27 external links on Spanish language in the Philippines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.zamboanga.com/history/republic_of_zamboanga.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.buscoenlaces.es/kaibigankastila/libradav_eng.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://emanila.com/news/opinion/ggrivera_2001_04_10_opinion_tagalog.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716160809/http://www.deped.gov.ph/about_deped/history.asp to http://www.deped.gov.ph/about_deped/history.asp
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=philamer;cc=philamer;idno=anu3845.0001.001;frm=frameset;view=image;seq=43;size=100;page=root
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.buscoenlaces.es/kaibigankastila/rivera3.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ncca.gov.ph/culture%26arts/cularts/arts/literary/literary-philspain.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.buscoenlaces.es/kaibigankastila/cine.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.buscoenlaces.es/kaibigankastila/libradav_eng.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/columns/view/20071204-104897/The_loss_of_Spanish
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.palhbooks.com/escoda.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://archive.arabnews.com/?page=7&section=0&article=91871&d=7&m=2&y=2007&pix=opinion.jpg&category=Opinion
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.battlingbastardsbataan.com/som.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2794.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://lgpolar.com/page/read/119
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.schoolsandcourses.com/noticias_ver.asp?idNoticia=238
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.deped.gov.ph/cpanel/uploads/issuanceImg/DM%20No.%20490,%20s.%202007.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.deped.gov.ph/cpanel/uploads/issuanceImg/DM%20No.%20560,%20s.%202008.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view/20090426-201554/Scholarships-for-teachers-to-learn-Spanish
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=586110&publicationSubCategoryId=79
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20071205-104920/Spain%92s_king_hails_Arroyo%2C_RP_democracy
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/columns/view/20071206-105314/Spanish_on_comeback_trail_in_Philippines
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://spanish-differences.com/Spanish/Philippines-Spanish.php
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/j/m/jml34/chabacano.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://buscoenlaces.es/kaibigankastila/rivera4.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.galeondemanila.org/index.php/component/content/article/49/111
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://buscoenlaces.es/kaibigankastila/filip_2005.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:59, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Spanish~Iberophile propaganda
Most of the claims about the importance and predominance of Spanish are sourced to the same online treatise by one person, Guillermo Gómez Rivera, a pro-Spanish activist, and is written in an obviously polemic, activist tone, describing the decline of Spanish in the Philippines as 'genocide' and calling for its propagation. It is not clear that the claims in the article reflect scholarly consensus in the field. It is not obvious to me that the author is a professional historian or linguist; his membership in the Real Academia Española can be seen as a reflection of his valuable services to Spain, rather than of strictly academic merit. Thus, the source seems neither neutral/unbiased nor clearly reliable. As for the substance of his position, I would note that the only real 'genocide' would be the displacement of Tagalog and the other native Philippine languages by either English, Spanish, or any other colonial language, and such a displacement by Spanish, similar to what has happened in the Americas, would seem to be the author's preferred outcome. I see that another user has already quoted Rizal, who, while necessarily writing in Spanish, reacted precisely against such open or de facto enthusiasts for the assimilation to Spanish: "You beg for Hispanization, and do not pale with shame when they deny it you! ... What are you going to do with Castilian, the few of you who will speak it? Kill off your own originality, subordinate your thoughts to other brains, and instead of freeing yourselves, make yourselves slaves indeed! ... He among you who talks that language neglects his own in such a way that he neither writes nor understands it, and how many have I not seen who pretended not to know a single word of it!" Being faithful to the form of Rizal's writing means being unfaithful to its content.--94.155.68.202 (talk) 21:50, 28 September 2018 (UTC)